Teacher Bullying in Queensland Schools - The Bad Apple Bullies Blog.

Important message for Geoff Wilson, Queensland Minister of Education.

Geoff Wilson - on 30 November 2009 you said that any allegation about the bullying of Education Queensland whistleblowers would be treated "extremely seriously".

"I urge (Opposition education spokesman) Dr Flegg to provide any evidence he has about these issues to Education Queensland for investigation as a matter of priority," you said.

You said that your department encouraged staff to come forward with their concerns, Mr Wilson.

But Mr Wilson -  about a year later, your staff will put the whistleblowing teachers on "Managing Unsatisfactory Performance" and drive them into ill health and out of work!

-  this seems to be the Education Queensland unofficial policy for dealing with disclosures.

• Qld teachers complain of bullying, AAP, The Brisbane Times, 30 November 2009 :  http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/qld-teachers-complain-of-bullying-20091130-k065.html

 

Mr Wilson, your staff seem to be reluctant to tell you the truth!

On 4 September this year Robina Cosser sent an official submission to Anna Bligh and her "Round Table" concerning workplace bullying in Queensland schools.

Hasn't Anna Bligh discussed the submission with you yet?

When Robina first asked for the workplace bullying to be investigated in December 2000, she was threatened five times that "action would be taken" against her if she contined to complain.

Robina Cosser was certainly not "encouraged to come forward with her concerns".

The CMC and Education Queensland refused to investigate Robina's November 2000 complaint till 2006.

- After Robina had discovered that her Education Queensland "offical records" had been extensively falsified!

And even in 2006 the "Independent Investigator" was only allowed to interview two of the bullies and to phone another bully.

And he was only allowed to copy down exactly what these bullies told him, even if it was obviously untrue. 

Mr Wilson, why don't you know these facts?

A copy of Robina's submission to Anna Bligh concerning the corruption / failure of the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission ( CMC ) / Education Queensland "investigation process" can be found on Anna Bligh's website :

http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/community-issues/open-transparent-gov/submissions/submissions-201-220/robina-cosser.aspx

Mr Wilson, don't just passively wait for your staff to tell you about the bullying - they may be too afraid to tell you the truth!

You need to set an example for your staff, Mr Wilson - read Robina Cosser's submission and find out the facts for yourself!

Submission to Anna Bligh concerning the failure of the Education Queensland / Crime and Misconduct Commission investigation process.

4 September, 2009

 

Anna Bligh, Premier,

Queensland Government.

Dear Mrs Bligh,

You have asked the Queensland people to give you their views on -

How can Queensland’s integrity and accountability framework be improved and strengthened?

Mrs Bligh, I met you and Jim Varghese at the Cairns Community Conference on 23 June, 2002.

I told you that, when Queensland classroom teachers were bullied at work, the immediate and only advice of the Queensland Teachers Union ( QTU ) was to "accept the things you cannot change" because the Education Queensland Grievance process did not work and teachers who "fought it" suffered physical or mental breakdown.

My subsequent experience suggests to me that the advice of the QTU was correct.

And that nothing has changed since I spoke to you on 23 June 2002.

These recommendations to you are based on my experience of dealing with the Queensland Department of Education, The Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Queensland Ombudsman -

Guidelines for decision makers.

2. Should the Queensland codes of conduct be strengthened in any way? If so, how should they be strengthened?

Queensland school principals seem to have no knowledge of the Education Queensland codes of conduct, or of Education Queensland policies, the Queensland Public Service Regulations, etc.

Education Queensland does not seem to have a literate culture.

It seems to have an oral culture - principals seem to "phone a friend" rather than read the official policies.

The Education Queensland codes of conduct would be "strengthened" if -

Queensland teachers were required to sit a written exam on the codes of conduct

before they were allowed to apply for promotion or for acting positions.

And, having demonstrated their capacity to read and to understand the codes of conduct, school administrators were then expected to comply with the codes of conduct.

There were serious consequences for administrators whose behaviour was in breach of the codes of conduct.

Because if there are no consequences, there are no codes.

The Queensland Department of Education has a responsibility to protect employees from workplace abuse.

It should be clearly stated in the code of conduct that classroom teachers are professionals and have the right to conduct themselves as professionals.

And that it is not acceptable professional conduct to punish a teacher for engaging in professional discussion.

So, for example, if a teacher expresses concern about the groups of unsupervised children who are roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes, it is not acceptable professional practice for the principal to respond by putting the teacher on Diminished Workplace Performance.

The Department of Education has a responsibility to protect classroom teachers from principals who maliciously "beat up" trivial incidents or imaginary "complaints" to justify putting the teachers into the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance program.

District Office staff need to be more active in protecting teachers from workplace abuse.

So, for example, if an "acting" principal contacts the District office on her third day of "acting" and boasts that she is going to put a classroom teacher on Managing Unsatisfactory Performance, alarm bells should ring in that district office. Steps should be taken immediately to protect the classroom teachers at that school from workplace abuse. And the "acting" principal should be closely mentored and helped to understand and to comply with the Departmental policies.

The continual generation of "new" codes of conduct or official policies is not enough.

Compliance with the codes of conduct should be measured.

And it should be measured by an independent body.

So, for example, in July 2002 - less than one month after I spoke to Anna Bligh - the QTU reported that "more and more" QTU members were being bullied into ill health retirement.

Does this teacher abuse continue? This needs to be measured.

　

　

Managing conflicts of interest

4. How could safeguards to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately managed be improved?

　

It needs to be clearly stated in the code of conduct that Queensland public service administrators must not pressure subordinate officers to join their own branch of a political party.

I have disclosed, in my letter to Robert Needham dated 26 February 2009, the continuing conflict of interest on the grounds of political belief that seems to have affected / corrupted the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission ( CMC ) / Education Queensland Investigation process and the Freedom of Information process in my own case.

Any public service officer who writes any report / "Briefing For The Minister" / makes any decision concerning a teacher should be required to state at the end of the document that they understand the concept of "conflict of interest" and that they have no conflict of interest in taking this action.

Members of promotion panels should be required to sign a statement that they understand the concept of "conflict of interest" and that they have no conflict of interest in making this promotion decision.

So, for example, when a new Information Commissioner is appointed, each member of the interview panel should be required to state that they have no conflict of interest in making this appointment.

CMC / Education Queensland investigations should not be controlled / managed / supervised by the person whose behaviour is being investigated.

The CMC should not "liaise" concerning an investigation with the person being investigated.

That person’s "advice" concerning the teacher or the investigation should not simply be copied down by the CMC officers into their official records.

　

　

Transparency

23 a. Is information about the decision-making processes of Government sufficiently available?

No, because -

Education Queensland, the CMC and the Queensland public service seem to operate as a fact-free zone.

They seem to operate as an oral culture.

Decisions concerning teachers seem to be based on malicious gossip and "feelings" that principals (and junior CMC officers) claim to be experiencing concerning the teachers.

So, for example, a principal who has not been into a teacher’s classroom or looked at their program all year can suddenly claim to have "feelings" about that teacher that require the teacher to be put into the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Program.

This is not the professional standard that I would have expected.

　

Education Queensland "official records" are of an appalling standard. When you ask for the documentation of the reasons for a decision, you are provided with a jumble of scribbles on sticky-notes and scraps of paper. It is very difficult to glean any meaning from these scribbled notes. But it is entirely up to you to try to figure out what is being alleged against you in the scribbles.

This appalling standard of documentation facilitates the workplace abuse.

All allegations concerning a teacher should be

typed in sentences on a form which has a space for the teacher to respond to the allegations.

Allegations should concern facts, not feelings that the principal claims to be experiencing.

No allegation should be placed on a teacher’s official record until after the teacher has had the opportunity to read the allegation and to respond to the allegation in writing.

There should be consequences for principals who make secret collections of real and imaginary allegations concerning classroom teachers.

All teachers should be encouraged to examine, sign and date their official records at least once a year.

　

I have described in my letter dated 29 July 2009 to Robert Needham (and all attendees at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009) the letter to me from The Director, Complaints Services, CMC dated 4 January 2007, in which she advised me that -

"Departmental officers … explained to you the reasons for the alteration of some of the records, in part arising from the paraphrasing of your words by departmental officers."

This is absolute gibberish.

I met Ken Smith and Peter Edwards.

I recorded these meetings.

Neither of them said anything so ridiculous.

And no other "departmental officer" has ever attempted to fob me off with this sort of gibberish.

When I made an FOI request for the Departmental "record" from which The Director, Complaints Services, CMC had copied this gibberish, I was told that there was no documentation and that The Director, Complaints Services, CMC had little memory of what she had written.

But this gibberish is now on my official record.

And decisions concerning me have been based on this gibberish.

This is not the professional standard that I would have expected.

　

All investigation reports, "Briefings to the Minister", letters, etc. prepared by public servants should have a bibliography, listing the documents used in preparing the final document.

When there is no bibliography -

there is no transparency.

there is no Freedom of Information.

and decisions concerning Queensland teachers are based on malicious gossip and absolute gibberish.

　

Prevention

25. How could prevention measures be enhanced?

Queensland classroom teachers who disclose child abuse by another teacher seem to be at great risk of "payback" allegations.

Classroom teachers who disclose child abuse should be supported and protected for longer than one year.

This protection should be organised at a district level.

　

So-called "Natural Justice" - as practiced in Education Queensland and the Queensland public service - is being abused to teach children to lie, reward poor behaviour and facilitate systemic corruption.

So, for example, in one particular school, a teacher followed the School Behaviour Management Policy.

She gave misbehaving children three warnings and then sent them to the principal.

The children were simply allowed to lie to the principal about their behaviour and about the teacher.

The children’s lies were accepted, recorded and placed secretly on the teacher‘s "official record".

And this process of allowing poorly behaved children to lie about their own behaviour and about the teacher - and to escape the consequences of their poor behaviour - was called "Natural Justice".

This "Natural Justice" rewards poor behaviour.

These children were being taught to lie.

The CMC / Education Queensland investigation process works in a similar manner -

The CMC hands the investigation back to the department.

Over a period of several years, the Ethical Standards Branch produce a "Final Outcome Advice" full of gibberish.

And the CMC "accept" the gibberish and declare your case "considered closed".

And then they refuse to read your letter telling them that they have been fobbed off with gibberish.

Queensland teachers are not safe in this environment.

"Natural Justice" is not working.

We need real justice in Queensland.

　

　

26. Are there any other ways the CMC could assist public sector agencies to build capacity to prevent inappropriate conduct?

The Queensland public service promotion process seems to facilitate corruption.

In New South Wales in 1980 I was inspected for a whole day. My program was carefully examined. I was required to lead a staff meeting while being observed. And then I was placed on the NSW "Primary Promotion List One".

The Education Queensland promotion selection process seems to be far less rigorous.

Many Queensland school principals do not seem to be able to read, write, listen and think very well.

They seem to be selected because they "interview well".

But psychopaths "interview well".

And working with psychopaths is very, very difficult for teachers.

The Education Queensland promotion system should be far more rigorous.

Promotion should be based on real ability.

Or, as more and more teachers with lower and lower levels of literacy are accepted into university eduction courses, intelligent Queensland teachers are going to be at greater and greater risk of workplace abuse.

Education Queensland investigations - and internal reviews - need to be conducted by intelligent, literate people who have no conflict of interest and who have sufficient integrity to "find" the truth.

This is not the case in Education Queensland at the present time.

　

Queensland teachers need to be protected from -

"joke" allegations concerning them

"payback" allegations

malicious "beat up" allegations.

Queensland teachers who are the subject of allegations need to be -

given a copy of the allegations in writing

allowed to respond in writing

have their response read and "considered" by an intelligent, literate person with no conflict of interest in the situation.

　

I would suggest that these simple measures would not only protect Queensland teachers from workplace abuse, they would prevent the waste of public resources.

Queensland taxpayers’ money should not be used to protect psychopaths and to facilitate the abuse of Queensland classroom teachers.

　

　

28. How could the current legislative protections for whistleblowers be enhanced?

Writing yet more documents / policies / codes / legislative protections is not the answer.

Abusive principals do not know about the official policies, they do not understand them and they do not apply them.

They do seem to know that nobody in authority cares about the policies.

And that there will be no consequence if they disregard the policies.

All Queensland government policies / codes / legislative protections would be "enhanced" - and there would be less need to whistleblow - if they were -

known about,

understood,

respected

　

and enforced.

　

　

Are the mechanisms to find unacceptable behaviour sufficient?

29. Are the current systems and processes in place to manage investigations appropriate?

Education Queensland must stop exploiting Aboriginal employees to conduct faux "internal reviews".

For example, it is not appropriate for a young man who identifies as an Aboriginal - a person from a primarily oral culture - a person with no qualifications in education, law or psychology, to be asked by Education Queensland to "internally review" a complaint of discrimination that has been made by an English-born, well-qualified, older woman teacher.

And it is not appropriate for the Aboriginal "internal reviewer" to be instructed -

to base his "internal review" on a mass of falsified "records’ that have been secretly placed on the teacher’s official records.

not to speak to the teacher.

not to communicate with her by email.

not to "consider" her responses to the falsified "records".

not to ask any questions about the conflict of interest on the grounds of political belief.

　

Aboriginal people have suffered abuse for generations.

And now Education Queensland seems to be exploiting young Aboriginal public servants to facilitate the abuse of older women teachers.

　

Education Queensland must stop splitting complaints up into parts to make it easier to "find no evidence" of corruption.

For example, it is not appropriate -

to respond to a complaint concerning workplace bullying by conducting an internal review based on a mass of falsified "records" that have been secretly placed on a teachers’ official files.

for the "internal reviewer" to "find" that there is no evidence of bullying in the falsified "records".

to describe the internal review as an investigation in the CMC official records, thus concealing the fact that it was only an "internal review" and the internal reviewer was not allowed to ask any questions about the conflict of interest.

then to wait for more than a year before conducting an investigation into the falsification of the official records.

and then to stop that "investigation" as soon as it has been established that the documents were placed on the teachers’ official records secretly.

Thus preventing the investigator from "finding" -

that the teacher’s official records were falsified.

and that the teacher’s official records were falsified to conceal the workplace bullying.

　

　

Sanctions for unacceptable behaviour

31. Are current disciplinary proceedings sufficient to deal with the wide range of unacceptable behaviour that public officials could potentially engage in?

No.

Investigations are delayed for years so that abusive principals can then claim to be unable to remember what they did or why they did it.

This delaying strategy facilitates the systemic abuse. It sends a message to abusive principals that they will not be held accountable for their abusive behaviour. So abusive principals have no reason to change their abusive behaviour.

"Independent investigators" are instructed to simply copy down what they are told by abusive administrators, even if it is obviously untrue.

This process is not investigation. It is dictation.

It is a waste of public money to employ ex-policemen to conduct investigations of this standard. It must be absolutely obvious to these ex-policemen that what they are doing is ridiculous and that they are being employed to facilitate the abuse of Queensland teachers.

In this manner real investigation is avoided, but the Education Queensland faux "investigation" process facilitates -

yet more changes to the official "story"

and the making of yet more allegations against the teacher,

which are yet again copied onto the teacher‘s official records.

And then the "investigation is yet again declared "closed" by Education Queensland and the CMC.

Years later, when the teacher discovers these new allegations under FOI, her protests to the CMC are not read because senior CMC officers have declared her case "considered closed".

And so the teacher has once again been refused the right to respond to the allegations concerning her.

The CMC / Education Queensland "investigation" process seems to be corrupt.

　

32. How can the current regime of sanctions for unacceptable behaviour be further enhanced to allow for appropriate responses?

First, and most importantly, the Queensland government has to demonstrate that it is willing to "find" evidence of unacceptable behaviour.

　

Abusive principals should be returned to the position at which they were employed at the time of the abuse.

Then the abusive principal should be very closely monitored and 360-degree evaluated until they are able to demonstrate that they can perform their role without abusing teachers.

By demonstrate I do not mean glib, confident talk.

Or charming smiles.

I mean documented, 360-degree proof of the use of non-abusive management strategies.

Further suggestions

35. Are there any other ways Queensland’s integrity and accountability framework can be strengthened and improved?

Queensland public servants and junior CMC officers seem to be reluctant to tell senior officers about disclosures.

Public servants "lose" or falsify the documentation of your disclosure over and over again. They seem to edit your disclosures out of "Briefings" and out of records of phone calls. They seem to pause tape recorders to avoid making a recording of your disclosure.

An ordinary Queenslander cannot find a way of making a disclosure that the Queensland public service cannot "lose", falsify, agree not to read, edit out, or "not understand".

And then, based on "Briefings" that seem to be prepared by corrupt or very fearful public servants, the Premier, Queensland Government Ministers and senior officers sign agreements not reply to - or to read - your letters.

They all agree "not to know".

These agreements by Ministers and Senior officers not to read or to reply to your letters seem to be signed just before documents are released to you under Freedom of Information - documents which reveal the full extent of the corruption.

When you first complain to the CMC, you may not realise the full extent of the corruption that you are dealing with.

No normal person could possibly imagine the extent of the incompetence / corruption.

So your first complaint may be dismissed as "not serious" by the CMC and returned to the "unit concerned" - to the people whose behaviour you are complaining about.

Then, when you gradually discover the full extent of the corruption, your letters disclosing the corruption are not read by junior CMC officers - because their senior officers have declared your case "considered closed".

The Queensland government must -

demonstrate a willingness to "know" about corruption.

allow public servants to read letters disclosing corruption.

allow public servants to "know about" and to record disclosures.

　

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-trained "Discrimination Solicitors" seem to be being employed by Education Queensland to facilitate discrimination by "losing" - or refusing to release under FOI - the documentary evidence of discrimination. Or by "finding" documents that introduce continual changes to the official story.

HREOC need to take steps to ensure that their employees do not use their HREOC training to facilitate discrimination and workplace abuse throughout all Queensland government departments.

　

Yours sincerely,

 

----------------------------

Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference, 2009.

29 July, 2009

 

Robert Needham, Chairperson, Crime and Misconduct Commission of Queensland

 

The Honourable Jerrold Cripps, Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales

 

The Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RDF, QC, Commissioner, Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia

 

And all attendees at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I am a whistleblower.

 

I am one of your clients.

 

In Dangerous Liaisons Robert Needham reminded us of the words of Aldous Huxley - "the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced".

 

If  I were invited to speak to the conference, this is what I would tell you about the "ends produced" by a CMC / Education Queensland investigation -

 

 

I am one of the 98% of people who have made a complaint to the Queensland CMC and had it handed back to the public service "agency" concerned.

 

On 23 June 2002 I met Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese. I told them that, when Queensland teachers were bullied at work, the only advice of the Queensland Teachers' Union was to "accept the things you cannot change", because the Education Queensland Grievance system did not work. I believe that my experience since June 2002 has demonstrated the truth of that first disclosure.

 

On 26 February 2003 and again on 29 June 2003, I disclosed to Peter Beattie that certain political relationships seemed to be affecting the investigation of my Grievance.

 

(I detailed this continuing political situation in my disclosure to Robert Neeedham dated 26 February, 2009.)

 

On 26 March 2004 I received a few Freedom of Information documents and I immediately reported to Education Queensland FOI officers that some of my official records had been falsified.

 

On 12 April 2004 I complained to the CMC that my Education Queensland "official records" seemed to have been extensively falsified.

 

 

The Education Queensland "Final Outcome Advice" to the CMC concerning my complaint is dated 15 February 2008.

 

It is signed by David Garland, Principal Advisor, Investigations and Complaints, Ethical Standards, Education Queensland.

 

I have never spoken to Mr Garland or had any communication with him at all.

 

This "Final Outcome Advice" seems to have been simply accepted and filed by the CMC.

 

It is a substantially falsified record.

 

Which suggests that the"ends produced" by the Education Queensland / CMC investigation process are the continuing falsification of my official records.

 

The Final Outcome Advice reads:

 

Reference Number CMC MI-03-0035 & MI-04-1824

 

How dealt with - External investigation.

 

FALSIFIED

 

MI-03-0035  was "internally reviewed" by an Aboriginal employee of Education Queensland - a project officer with no qualifications in education, law or psychology.

 

He worked under the direction of the senior officer whose behaviour I had complained about.

 

He based his "internal review" on a mass of falsified "records" that had been placed secretly on my Stage 1 Grievance file to create the false impression that these falsified "records" had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

 

The internal reviewer decided / was directed not to "consider" my responses to these falsified "records".

 

And the internal reviewer does not seem to have "considered" my 26 November 2003 full disclosure to the CMC, although the CMC seem to have provided Education Queensland with several copies of this disclosure.

 

 

" Findings for each CMC MAR allegation.

 

Partially substantialted. ... All other allegations remain unsubstantiated."

 

FALSIFIED

 

The second MI-04-1824 investigation was conducted by a Verifact investigator, but every stage of the investigation was tightly controlled by officers of the Education Queensland Ethical Conduct Unit.

 

The Verifact investigator was only allowed to "discover" that a huge mass of records had been placed on my file without my knowledge.

 

Then the investigation was stopped.

 

The Verifact investigator was not allowed to investigate the actual falsification of these "records".

 

And the various conflicts of interest on political grounds that seemed to have affected the handling of my disclosures.

 

So it would be more accurate to say that "all other allegations remain uninvestigated".

 

 

"  ...Letter to the Regional Executive Director and that the RO (name of acting principal) received advice about a breach of the COC in relation to the falsification of records. .. "

 

FALSIFIED

 

On 23 August 2006 Regan Nuemann, Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Education Queensland, wrote to the Regional Executive Director concerned.

 

The letter seems to have actually been written by Peter Edwards, Assistant Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Education Queensland.

 

" ... I have determined that the ... investigation's recommendations are appropriately addressed by taking steps to remind all personnel in the region of their responsibilities with the use and management of adverse departmental records."

 

But my complaint was that these "adverse departmental records" were not only concealed from me, they had been extensively falsified. Many seem to be "records" of entirely imaginary conversations.

And that a mass of these falsified "records" had been placed on the record of the Stage 1 Grievance investigation, to create the false impression that they had been discussed with me during the  Grievance investigation process.

 

" ... I would appreciate (sic) if could arrange for this reminder to be distributed at the earliest opportunity.

 

Apart from these outstanding actions, the matter is considered closed.

 

Could you please pass on my appreciation to staff involved in the investigation process for their patience and input and wish them well in their future endeavours."

 

FOI application 340/5/1295 documents 4534 and 4535

 

 

"Action taken and why -

 

Mediation / Local Resolution. "

 

 

TOTALLY FALSIFIED

 

Nobody has mediated anything with me to this date.

 

Nothing has been resolved with me to this date.

 

 

 

"Any systemic issues identified

N/A"

 

 

NOT CORRECT

 

The CMC / Education Queensland investigation process raised several issues-

 

• Comments by Queensland Teachers' Union officers suggest that "more and more" QTU members were being bullied into ill health retirement in 2002. What action has been taken since 2002 to deal with this abuse? Are fewer teachers being bullied into ill-health retirement in 2009?

 

• What action has been taken since 2002 to protect classroom teachers from school principals who pressure them to join their branch of a political party? Principals need to be clearly instructed that this is not appropriate. It can affect their professional relationship and create a conflict of interest.

 

• Is it sufficient to simply make changes to wording of the official policies? Principals are not following the official policies.

 

• Classroom teachers who disclose child abuse by other teachers are very vulnerable to "payback" allegations. What action has been taken to protect classroom teachers who disclose child abuse?

 

• Are Queensland school principals commonly putting classroom teachers on DWP / MUP for engaging in professional discussion in a professional manner - for example, for expessing concern about the unsupervised groups of children who are roaming around the school, disrupting classes?

 

• What action has been taken to protect teachers from the falsification of their official records?

 

• What action has been taken to ensure the integrity of the records of Departmental investigations - to protect the records of these investigations from being falsified?

 

• Is the Education Queensland promotion system dysfunctional? Does the promotion of principals and deputy principals with poor listening / thinking / reading / writing skills and no knowledge of Departmental policies put classroom teachers at risk of harm?

 

• Should Education Queensland acting principals and acting deputy principals be expected to demonstrate awareness of - and respect for -  Education Queensland policies before they are promoted?

 

• If principals are selected because they "interview well" (because they are glib liars), will those principals encourage their students to lie to them?

 

• Do principals who bully their staff encourage students to bully each other?

 

• The District Office staff knew that the acting principal and acting deputy principal at my school were both very inexperienced. They knew that the acting principal's behaviour was affecting my health. They knew that the acting principal's total knowledge of the Diminished Workplace Performance process was contained on one small square sticky-note. Yet the District Office staff did nothing to protect me from the acting principal's abuse. Do Education Queensland District office staff have a responsibility to protect classroom teachers from the actions of inexperienced school principals?

 

• Are Queensland public servants being trained to edit disclosures out of their "frank and fearless" Briefing to the Minister?

 

• Are Aboriginal employees being abused by Education Queensland senior officers - used as puppets to conduct faux "internal reviews"?

 

• Are Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained "Discrimination solicitors" employed by Education Queensland to prevent discrimination? Or to facilitate discrimination by "losing" the evidence of discrimination?

 

• Is the Freedom of Information process being abused to continually "find" newly falsified "records" that protect the interests of abusive principals?

 

• Is it appropriate to appoint a person as Director of Ethical Standards when they are the subject of a CMC / Education Queensland investigation? And to allow this officer to control an investigation into themselves?

 

• In November 2004 the first internal reviewer "found" no evidence of workplace bullying - in documents that he knew were falsified. Then, one and half years later, the external "investigator" "found" that the falsified "records" had been placed secretly on my files. But to this day nobody has "considered" my responses to the falsified "records". And nobody has investigated the falsification of my records. And nobody has investigated the bullying. My complaint has been simply been side-stepped and declared "finalised'. Are CMC / Education Queensland investigations commonly conducted in this manner?

 

• When you first make a complaint to the CMC, you may not realise the extent of the corruption that you are dealing with. No normal person could possibly imagine the extent of the incompetence / corruption. So your first disclosure to the CMC may not seem to be "serious" and it will be passed to the "unit concerned". But when you gradually realise the true extent of the corruption, and you tell the CMC what you are discovering, the CMC refuse to read your further disclosures or to speak to you over the phone. Is this CMC practice appropriate? Does it facilitate systemic corruption?

 

• Is it appropriate for CMC officers to accept an internal review that they know is based on falsified "records"?

 

• Do CMC and Education Queensland officers commonly falsify official records by describing internal reviews as "independent investigations"?

 

• CMC officers do not seem to read disclosures. Is this an acceptable practice?

 

• Are CMC officers afraid to record disclosures that are made over the phone?

 

• Are CMC officers afraid to record disclosures that are political in nature?

 

• The standard of documentation by Education Queensland administrators is appalling. It is impossible to understand or to respond effectively to allegations that are secretly scribbled on sticky-notes and loose scraps of paper. And large numbers of official records are continually being "lost". It is impossible to understand the reason for decisions concerning you. This situation faciliates workplace abuse. What action has been taken since 2002 to improve the standard of Department of Education documentation?

 

• In particular, I am concerned about the poor standard of documentation of Education Queensland and CMC reports and decisions concerning teachers.

For example, on 4 January 2007, Helen Couper, Director Complaints services, CMC, emailed me to advise me that -

 

"Departmental officers ... explained to you the reasons for the alteration of some of the records, in part arising from the paraphrasing of your words by departmental officers".

 

This is absolute gibberish.

 

No departmental officer has ever tried to tell me such gibberish.

 

Many, many hours of my life during the past nine years have been drained away responding to this sort of public service gibberish - 

 

(The acting principal seems to have been secretly making falsified records of real and imaginary conversations concerning me.

The acting principal then seems to have hand-written notes to the usual principal on these falsified documents.

The usual principal also seems to have written notes on one of the falsified documents.

Then they put the twice-falsifed "records" in the Stage 1 Grievance file.

This created the false impression that these falsified and re-falsified records had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.)

 

- but on the basis of what seems to be Education Queensland gibberish, Helen Couper advised me that the CMC did not propose to communicate with me further.

 

When I made an FOI application for the Education Queensland letter or report from which Helen Couper had copied this gibberish, the original document could not be found and Helen Couper claimed to have little memory of what she had written.

 

This is not the professional standard that one would expect.

 

• Every letter or report written by a Queensland public servant should be supported by a list of the documents that were consulted in preparing the document.

Until this is done, we will not have Freedom of Information.

 

And we will have public service decisions based on gibberish.

 

And the systemic corruption will continue.

 

 

 

I could give many more examples of systemic issues raised by this experience of the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process.

 

 

Mr Needham,  I am not at all satisfied with the means employed and the ends produced by the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process.

 

Are you?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

....................

 

A copy of this letter can also be found at : http://www.badapplebullies.com/letters.htm

Robert Needham, Chairperson, CMC, Letter dated 4 March, 2009.

 

Mr Robert Needham, Chairperson,

Crime and Misconduct Commission

GPO Box 3123

Brisbane

QLD 4001

4 March 2009

Dear Mr Needham,

On 31 August 2001 I made a Public Interest Disclosure to Jim Varghese, Director-General of Education Queensland.

I made the disclosure again to Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese in person on 23 June 2002.

I disclosed to them that the Education Queensland Diminished Workplace Performance (now called Managing Unsatisfactory Performance) Policies and Grievance polices were being abused to drive Queensland classroom teachers into ill health and out of work.

In 2007 99.8% of Australian teachers reported in UNE research that they had been bullied at work.

Bullying was reported to be "rife" in Queensland schools.

Up to 50% of Queensland teachers now leave the profession after five years.

Students with OP’s as low as 19 are now being accepted into Queensland universities to train to be teachers.

And Queensland parents are increasingly concerned about the falling academic standards in Queensland State Schools.

There is a Public Interest in identifying -

1) Exactly how Education Queensland policies are being abused by school principals and senior public servants to bully good Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.

and

2) Why Queensland teachers who are bullied at work are advised by the QTU to "accept the things they cannot change" because there is no hope of justice.

I did hope.

I hoped that I could stop the systemic abuse of Queensland teachers.

Since early 2003 I have investigated this systemic abuse of policies because I appreciate that the time of your own CMC officers is limited and so "the wool is very easily pulled over their eyes" by Education Queensland officers.

On 17 September 2007 Anna Bligh announced to the people of Queensland that there would be an independent overhaul of Queensland's Freedom of Information laws.

She told Queenslanders that she wanted to provide the public with greater accessibility to information and better transparency.

But Anna Bligh's senior public servants, including the ... , had secretly agreed in 2006 to block - or "facilitate differently" - my FOI applications!

I had been bullied myself in November / December 2000 by Mrs GR, the acting principal of Lynch-Mob State College.

I had asked Mrs GR to support me in dealing with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.

Mrs GR would have been aware that it was going to be very difficult for me to complain about her abuse, because we were both active members of the Labor party.

Mrs GR was campaign manager for ... at the time that she was bullying me.

We were in the run-up to the February 2001 State election.

...

I had spent many hours organising groups of Labor party supporters to go out and lobby for ... .

Mrs GR had asked me - during several school lunchtimes in late 1999 - to join her own branch of the Labor party.

I had not joined Mrs GR’s branch, in fact I had become less enthusiastic about the Labor party in late 1999, and Mrs GR’s behaviour towards me became more aggressive.

At the time that Mrs GR attacked me - November 2000

- it seemed that Labor was going to lose the election.

I was worried that Mrs GR might be trying to drive me out of work before her Labor "power base" vanished.

It was very hard for me to deal with Mrs GR’s bullying because I liked and respected ... .

I did not hold ...  responsible for Mrs GR’s bullying and I did not want to cause problems for ...  and ...  during the run-up to the 17 February 2001 state election.

13 December 2000

at 1:12 AM I first tried to contact the Education Queensland CMC Liaison Officer by email.

She did not respond.

This seemed shocking to me at the time. It seemed to support the QTU organiser’s advice to me that there was no hope of justice.

5 February 2001

I was threatened five separate times during what was represented to me as a meeting to discuss Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL’s Stage 1 Grievance Investigation Report.

These threats seemed to support the QTU organiser’s advice to me that the Education Queensland Grievance system was corrupt and that there was no hope of justice.

31 August 2001

I made a Stage 2 Grievance to Jim Varghese, the Director-General of Education, that there was systemic abuse of the Education Queensland DWP and Grievance processes to bully Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.

23 June 2002

I spoke to Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese.

9 July 2002

I gratefully accepted ill-health retirement, having been twice assured by ... that he had the bullying under control.

I believed that the situation had been informally resolved and that ... would make sure that Mrs GR’s behaviour would be carefully monitored in future.

A few days after my retirement Mrs GR was given a significant promotion opportunity - an "acting principal" position at a big local state school.

This did seem odd.

Then in late December 2002 I was told that Mrs GR’s promotion had been "confirmed" and I began to realise that I had been tricked.

26 February 2003

at 5:44 PM and again on

29 June 2003

at 2:06 PM I emailed Peter Beattie and "disclosed" to him that-

"I have tried very hard for two years to deal with this situation in a way that does no harm to the Labor party.

… both Mrs GR (the bully) and I were Labor Party members when all this began.

We both worked for ...  who is  …

Because Mrs GR was ... ’s campaign manager (at the time that she was bullying me) … I tried very hard to deal with the bullying informally. …

When ... told me he had the bullying well under control I believed him.

I trusted him. …"

OPS 70524 FOLIO 23, attached to letter to me from Kim Poiner, Manager, Cabinet Liaison and legal Services, dated 6 July 2007

Rachel Hunter was Public Service Commissioner at that time.

8 August 2003 Ms CHR

, Principal Advisor - Regional Services wrote a "Briefing Note for the Minister of Education".

http://www.badapplebullies.com/ministerialbriefings.htm

Ms CHR did not make clear in her "Briefing Note for the Minister" the various conflicts of interest that were affecting my Grievance-

the fact that Mrs GR was ... ’s campaign manager

 

and also the fact that Mrs GR had consulted / had recorded imaginary consultations with / had consulted but made no record of her consultation with several members of the Cairns District office staff - Mrs AG,  the Principal Personnel Officer, District Office, Mrs GN, the District Director and Ms CHR herself - before making her 29 November 2000 agreement with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL that "the (DWP) process is justified".

 

All of these Education Queensland officers seem to have based their advice to Mrs GR on malicious gossip and the imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR claimed to believe that she was having with children, parents, teachers, other principals, the local QTU organiser and District Office staff.

And Ms CHR did not make clear that, even after all of this consultation, Mrs GR’s total knowledge of the DWP process was contained on one sticky note - 2421 F 60 - at the time that she and usual principal Mr EL made their agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

And that it must have been obvious to each of the Education Queensland officers that Mrs GR had consulted that Mrs GR had not read the DWP policy and knew almost nothing about the DWP policy.

You might consider that this was negligent.

I certainly do.

14 August 2003

Rachel Hunter wrote to Ken Smith, Director-General of Education Queensland, and asked him to provide her with a brief on the issue.

I presume that Rachel Hunter was given Ms CHR’s "Briefing Note for the Minister".

24 September 2003

I contacted InformationPrivacy@qed.qld.gov.au

to ask, "How do I go about finding out why I was put on DWP?"

This was FOI 2361.

I am still waiting to receive these documents.

16 October 2003

, Rachel Hunter signed a Chief of Staff Briefing Note recommending that nobody respond to my correspondence.

Peter Beattie personally approved Rachel Hunter’s recommendation, as did Neil Smith, Jeff Loof and George O‘Farrell.

OPS 70524 FOLIO 16, attached to letter to me from Kim Poiner, Manager, Cabinet Liaison and legal Services, dated 6 July 2007

27 November 2003

I made a full disclosure to Eve Gardiner of the CMC.

I also emailed a copy of my disclosure to her.

At some time during 2003, before I made this disclosure to Eve Gardiner, I had spoken by phone to a CMC officer - also Eve Gardiner, I believe.

I was bewildered when Eve told me repeatedly that "it wasn't bullying".

I knew that it was bullying because of Mrs GR’s manner.

She seemed to be enjoying bullying me.

I protested to Eve that Mrs GR had not seen me teach for twelve months, so could Mrs GR possibly claim to have "concerns" about my classroom management?

Eve told me that Mrs GR had asked another person to watch me teaching.

I protested that this had not happened.

Eve said that, in these situations, the CMC believed the school principal.

After 12 July 2004, I discovered that this untruthful claim had been made in a handwritten comment on FOI 2469 File F document 72.

2469 F is the file containing the Stage 1 Grievance investigation documents that Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL had handed in to The District Office at the time of my retirement.

This created the false impression that the mass of falsified and re-falsified documents in 2469 F had been discussed with me and that I had been given the opportunity to respond to the falsified "records" before Mr EL dismissed my Stage I Grievance.

Document 72 was an untruthful / inaccurate "record" written by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Miss AL and dated 13 October 2000.

Miss AL had handed the falsified "record" to Mrs GR and it had been concealed from me till after July 12 2004.

This was done in breach of several Education Queensland policies.

At the bottom of this "record" Mrs GR had written by hand:

"Confidential request made to (Grade 7 teacher) L---- to act as "supportive colleague" to (my name) to try to give her some positive BM strategies. L---- agreed to do this."

This simply had not happened.

I had to search for Grade 7 teacher L---- at the end of most of my lessons.

And it is not an accepted policy of Education Queensland to make a secret agreement to conduct this sort of process on a teacher without her knowledge or consent.

If Mrs GR really gave Grade 7 teacher L---- this instruction, it would simply be another example of Mrs GR’s own behaviour towards me being in serious breach of Education Queensland official policies.

The fact that Eve Gardiner was aware of Mrs GR’s falsified claim, and Eve’s statement to me that in this sort of situation the CMC believe school principals, suggests to me that Eve Gardiner had been in contact with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL and Mrs GR before I made my disclosure to her on 26 November 2003.

And that Mr EL and Mrs GR had "pulled the wool over Eve’s eyes".

29 December 2003

I complained to the CMC and the Ombudsman about the conduct of ... .

3 January 2004

I complained to the CMC about the negligent refusal of Education Queensland senior public servants ...  and ... to deal with my complaint.

After 30 March 2004

my FOI documents were gradually released to me and I began to realise that a huge mass of falsified "records" had been secretly placed on my official Education Queensland files.

Many were "records" of imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR claimed to believe that she had been having with children, teachers, parents, principals and District Office staff.

13 April 2004

I wrote to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission trained Education Queensland "Discrimination Solicitor". I made an application for an internal review of FOI 2421.

I explained that I knew nothing about most of the documents in 2421 File F and that large numbers of these documents must be falsified.

This was the private file of falsified "records" of imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR had provided to the FOI officers on 5 February, 2004,

340/5/1295 document not numbered but seems to be 3010

and which Mrs GR had also handed to Mr EL to be placed in the Stage 1 Grievance Investigation file 2469 F, to create the impression that these imaginary ‘records" had been discussed with me during the investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance.

So it would have been obvious to the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" from that date that my Education Queensland records had been significantly falsified.

27 April 2004 Miss AL

’s "records" of the "mediated meeting" on 27 November 2000 were released to me for the first time.

2421 File F Mrs GR’s "private file" of real and imaginary "records" concerning me, document 31, number at top right hand side of page.

Miss AL had recorded that:

"Mrs GR then stated that there were a lot of allegations, and that she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened."

To this day I have no idea what these "things" are that "may have happened".

I made an FOI application for copies of these "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

June 21 2004

I emailed Ken Smith and copied the email to the CMC, the Ombudsman,

MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au

I attached a letter to Ken Smith and my responses to five of the falsified documents that I had found in 2421 File F - Mrs GR's "private file" of real and falsified "records" concerning me.

At 12:45 PM the next day, I handed in a printed copy of my letter to Ken Smith and my responses to the five falsified documents at the front desk of The District Office.

I emailed the Director-General at 3:37 PM that day to advise him of the name of the person in the District Office to whom I had handed the printed copy of these documents.

I later discovered under FOI that all copies - both printed and emailed - of my letter to Ken Smith and my responses to the falsified documents had simply been "lost".

29 July 2004

an officer of the Information Commission persuaded me to put FOI application 2361 and 2421 (Infocom ref: 2004/F04730) "in abeyance".

This now seems to have been a trick.

The remaining 2361 and 2421 documents have not been released to me to this date, 18 February, 2009.

In mid-2004 Ken Smith appointed John Ryan Director of Ethical conduct, so John was able to control the "internal review" into ... .

John Ryan met with CMC officers and discussed my complaint about ... .

John Ryan, ... told the CMC what "I wanted".

And the CMC seem to have simply copied John Ryan’s words into their own records and into their letters to me:

"… you have consistently claimed that action should have been taken against individuals she (sic) identified."

Letter to me from Helen Couper, 4 January 2007

When I complained to CMC officers that it was inappropriate for John Ryan to be controlling the "internal review" into ... , they told me that it was not their responsibility.

16 November, 2004

David Douglas, Executive Director, seems to have asked for my correspondence to be automatically filed and not read by anybody.

OPS 70524 FOLIO 11 attached to letter to me from Kim Poiner, Manager, Cabinet Liaison and legal Services, dated 6 July 2007

In late 2004 The District Director

 disclosed to officers of the Information Commissioner that he had visited Lynch-Mob State College and discussed putting me on DWP with Mrs GR during Term 4 2000.

A principal - whose "comments" concerning me were quoted by Mrs GR in three separate imaginary "records" - stated to Anne Lindon "that she did not recall having had any conversation with Mrs GR about you".

Letter to me from the Information Commissioner dated 14 December 2004.

Similarly, a District Office employee told Education Queensland FOI officers that they did NOT remember having the conversations with Mrs GR that Mrs GR had "recorded" and placed secretly on my file.

19 December 2004

I wrote to Margaret Newbery, Assistant Information Commissioner, and pointed out that this meant that, during the run-up to the state election, the ... District Director had met with the Local Member’s campaign manager and, although neither of them had seen me teach or looked at my program, they had planned to put me, another Labor party member and a campaign worker for ..., on DWP.

Then the District Director had left the school without discussing the situation with me.

I said that I found this story quite incredible.

I made an FOI application for the records of this conversation.

To this date I have had no response to this FOI application.

24 January 2005

I wrote again to the Information Commissioner, explaining that I was being bullied and disclosing the political background to the situation.

I also complained about the behaviour of the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination solicitor", who was "internally reviewing" my FOI application and ... .

28 January 2005

Greg Sorensen, Deputy Information Commissioner, wrote to Education Queensland to say that the Information Officer would review my complaint.

Within a few weeks Rachel Hunter chaired and ... was a member of a committee that selected Cathi Taylor, Ken Smith’s wife, to be the new information Commissioner.

I consider that ... had a conflict of interest in making this decision. ... was her husband’s boss.

... ’s campaign manager, her husband’s boss and her husband were all the subject of active Infocomm FOI searches and complaints to the CMC.

Cathi Taylor’s first act was to sack Greg Sorensen.

27 May 2005

I wrote to my Local Member, complaining about the behaviour of the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "discrimination solicitor", who seemed to be refusing to release the FOI documents to me.

My Local Member did nothing to help me.

But by September 2007 the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" had been appointed ... .

14 July 2005

A officer from the Office of the Information Commissioner rang me. She told me that tbe CMC rules had changed and that now I would not be able to get access to any document produced by the CMC.

I now wonder if

application 2361 and 2421 (Infocom ref: 2004/F04730) documents were CMC documents and this was why I was persuaded to put them "in abeyance" - so that the law could be changed and the documents could be refused to me.

My concern is that, during October - December 2000, Mrs GR seems to have been experiencing imaginary conversations concerning me with children, parents, other teachers, other principals, the local QTU organiser and at least one District Office employee.

Since I discovered the hidden mass of falsified "records" on my Education Queensland files, I have been concerned that Mrs GR may have claimed to have "heard" a confidential allegation concerning me, or that she may have groomed a child or parent to make such an allegation.

And that the allegation may have been handed to the CMC or some other body for investigation so that I would never be able to find it and never be able to prove myself innocent of this imaginary / groomed "confidential disclosure".

27 October 2005

, one month before the Verifact Investigation into my complaint about the falsification of my official records began, 2733 File F Administrative Law Services Branch document 24 - number at the bottom of the page - was released to me and I discovered for the first time that Mrs GR had "recorded" that she had made statements concerning me to the staff because of allegations that had been made about me in "notes to Grade 7 teacher L----  from Desley".

These allegations had never been discussed with me.

I made an FOI application for copies of these "notes to L----  from Desley".

Wednesday 15 February, 2006

I emailed Rod Welford, the Ombudsman, Ken Smith, Peter Edwards, the CMC, the EQ "internal reviewer" and John Ryan.

 

I said that I was beginning to wonder if some of the "records" hidden on my file were simply made up.

I had phoned a child, a teacher and a parent who seemed to be named in Mrs GR’s "records".

They had told me that they had not had those conversations with Mrs GR.

20 February 2006 12:25

I sent a copy of this email to the Information Commissioner.

10 February 2006

the Verifact investigator first tried to contact Mrs GR.

13 February 2006 Mrs GR

 contacted the Verifact Investigator.

2875 File J document 10 released to me after 11 October 2006, records that the Verifact Investigator had "liaised" with Mrs GR and that an appointment had been made to speak with Mrs GR the next day - 15 February 2006.

But the Verifact Investigation Running Sheet released to me after 12 June 2008 makes no mention of the meeting on 15 February 2006.

It only records that a meeting would be scheduled after Mrs GR "considers matter".

27 February 2006 Mrs GR

 rang the investigator. She told him that she was seeking Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) advice.

1 March 2006 Mrs GR

 spoke to John Ryan, Director of Ethical Standards, Education Queensland.

At 4:44 PM John Ryan emailed Kathryn Mahoney and The District Director:

"Mrs GR sounds very fragile -

she has asked if there is any way we can stop asking her for information -

she was not specific about requests -

I’ve given her an update on what we are trying to do re allegation of false documents ...

she has asked if there is any way we can limit requests to her about the 2000 issue -

she is fearful about her safety - …"

2875 File A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 681

2 March 2006

9:36 AM Kathryn Mahoney sent John Ryan’s email to Jason Davies, the Education Queensland FOI officer:

"Would like your thoughts on this matter sometime. Kathryn."

 

Mrs GR contacted the Verifact investigator. She told him that she had discussed the situation with the QTU and also with John Ryan "and was now aware of the extent of the allegations being made by claimant".

7 March 2006

the Verifact Investigator interviewed Mrs GR.

After this meeting the Verifact Investigator recommended that consideration be given to whether disciplinary action should be initiated.

340/ 5/1295 document numbers obscured but seem to be 1006 and 1010

Strangely, the Verifact Investigator records no further telephone contact with Education Queensland Officers for the next month.

29 March, 2006

The Verifact Investigator submitted a Report. I presume that this report would have recorded his recommendation that disciplinary action be considered.

This report has not yet been provided to me.

Susan Barker, Assistant Information Commissioner wrote to me to advise me that my application for the 2361 and 2421 (OIC ref: 2004/F04730) documents had been taken out of "abeyance".

4 April 2006

John Dobbie, Principal legal officer, Legal and Administrative Law Branch, Education Queensland wrote to advise me that-

 "I have today spoken to Mrs GR who has advised that she has no recollection of … the "notes to L----  from Desley".

"Mrs GR states that the events which are the subject of the note occurred many years ago and she has no recollection of their context."

My solicitor wrote to Education Queensland.

He asked Education Queensland to confirm in writing that there were no grounds for me to be placed in the Diminished Workplace performance program.

21 April 2006

John Ryan sent Mrs GR a copy of my solicitor’s letter. He asked her to telephone him if she wished to respond to the contents of my solicitor’s letter (340/5/1295 document 960).

2 June 2006

at 10:21 I emailed the Information Commissioner to make a formal complaint that an officer of the Information Commission seemed to have tricked me into agreeing to put my 2361 and 2421 (OIC ref: 2004/F04730) applications "into abeyance" because she assured me that these documents would be released to me in response to my later FOI application.

The officer then refused to re-open the external review application for two years.

Then the officer declared my application 2004/F04730 "closed".

To this date, 18 February, 2009, these 2361 and 2421 files have not been released to me.

These are the first documents that I first applied for.

These documents would probably explain the first, secret "reason" why Mrs GR and Mr EL made their 29 November 2000 agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

These are the documents that I want.

18 July 2006

Education Queensland Legal and Administrative Law officers Tom Jumertz, Trevor Morris, Andrew Smith and Matt Woodforth met with officers from the Office of the Information Commissioner, Sue Barker and Anne Lindon.

They discussed my FOI applications and the problem of "vexacious applicants".

 

I presume that they would also have discussed - 

The recommendation of the Verifact Investigator (four months before this meeting) that disciplinary action be considered against ... .

And the pressure that they were all under to refuse to process my FOI applications in the normal manner.

And my application for the first FOI documents - 2361 and 2421.

 

The last section of the "record" of this meeting has been concealed from me.

26 July 2006

Ken Smith wrote on a General Briefing Note -

" ...Mrs GR is not to be contacted with respect to any issues raised by (my name) . ..."

340/5/1295 external Review Document 1307

17 October 2006

Peter Edwards, Manager, Investigations and Complaints Management Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, wrote a General Briefing Note to The Director-General.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 957-959

 

"4. Verifact found that Mrs GR had kept some notes on ... (my name).

… (my name) had not previously seen these detrimental records."

This is correct.

And for this conduct alone the Verifact Investigator recommended that Disciplinary Action be considered.

But this is not the whole story.

http://www.badapplebullies.com/ministerialbriefings.htm

I discovered after June 12 2008, two years after the Verifact Investigation had been "completed", that Education Queensland senior officers had significantly limited the investigation.

Education Queensland senior officers had not allowed the Verifact Investigator to investigate the falsification of Mrs GR‘s secret "records":

The

63 2421 File F documents were described as "Lynch-Mob State School documents" when some of them were released to me for the first time after 27 April 2004.

But in 2006 Mrs GR told the Verifact Investigator that she had actually kept this file of 63 2321 F falsified records in her own possession.

But that was not the only file of falsified "records".

2) After 12 July 2004 another file of falsified "records" described as "2469 File F The District Office" had been released to me.

This file contained

146 documents, about half of them falsified.

Several of the documents had been falsified twice - Mrs GR had written falsified messages to Mr EL on several of her falsified 2421 documents.

And Mr EL had hand-written notes on one of the falsified documents himself.

2469 File F document 74 - number at the top right hand corner of this document. Miss AL’s notes on the meeting on 12 October 2000.

This file was called 2469 File F "The District Office Documents".

 

These two files - 2421 and 2469 - held different versions of the falsified documents.

After 12 June 2008 I discovered that a new document dated 5 February 2004 had appeared on my file.

The following words have been written by hand on a scrap of paper-

"5 February 2004

Dear Stephannie (Kalas- the Education Queensland FOI officer),

Please check out what may be relevant in the attached file.

Copies of these were also filed at Lynch-Mob State College.

Mrs GR"

340/5/1295 document has no number but is in the position 3010-3011

So, if we accept that this document that appeared for the first time after 12 June 2008 is a genuine document, it proves that Mrs GR not only had -

a 2421 F file of 63 falsified "records" concerning me that she was storing at home,

but she had also filed another set of falsified documents 2469 F at Lynch-Mob State College, on which she had written notes to Mr EL.

 

and that Mr EL had written notes on one of the falsified documents himself,

 

then they had placed the mass of falsified documents in the 2469 F file that contained the records of Mr EL’s "investigation" into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR’s (and his own) abuse of the Diminished Work Performance process.

 

And then Mr EL had noted in his "Stage 1 Grievance Investigation Report"-

"On the matter of the Grievance all paperwork was received ..."

2469 File F document 143, number at the top right hand corner of the document, Mr EL’s Stage 1 Grievance Investigation Report.

This is the Stage 1 Grievance File that Mr EL seems to have sent to the District Office a few days after my retirement on July 9 2002.

This created the

false impression that the mass of falsified "records" in this file 2469 F had been discussed with me during the investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR’s abuse of the DWP process, and that I had been given the opportunity to point out that many of these "records" had been significantly falsified.

 

"8. ... the WSPU will be closing the matter and will not enter into any more correspondence on all matters previously investigated. ..."

Peter Edwards' General Briefing Note: 340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 958

The Verifact Investigator seems to have only been allowed to establish that the falsified documents were placed on my Education Queensland files without my knowledge.

He was not allowed to investigate the actual falsification of the "records".

And he seems to have been instructed to copy down exactly what Mrs GR, Mr EL and Miss AL told him, even if it was obviously untrue.

In tiny-weeny writing at the very top of his investigation report, the Verifact Investigator has written:

"The witness based information contained within this report is soley sourced from interviews.

No conclusions are drawn in this report as to the veracity of such information."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 1003

You might think that this is a very strange sort of "investigation".

I certainly do.

At what stage of this process will Education Queensland actually investigate the falsification of my "records"?

http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

"9. It is recommended that the Department continue a "Nil Response Required" approach in all matters previously investigated, raised by (my name)."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 958

23 November 2006

I met Ken Smith and discussed my complaint.

He advised me to me to write to Rachel Hunter, who had been appointed Director-General of Education.

To this day, Rachel Hunter refuses to communicate with me concerning my complaint.

4 January 2007

Helen Cooper, Director Complaints Services, CMC, emailed me.

In discussing the falsification of my official "records", Helen Cooper stated:

"Departmental officers … explained to you the reasons for the alteration to some of the records, in part arising from the paraphrasing of your words by departmental officials."

 

This is gibberish.

Mrs GR hand-wrote comments on the falsified 2421 F "private file" of falsified documents concerning me.

Then she seems to have handed the falsified "records" to Mr EL, who also seems to have hand-written a comment on one of the documents.

Then they seem to have placed the falsified and re-falsified documents in 2469 F to create the false impression that the falsified documents had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance.

Somebody has "pulled the wool over Helen Cooper’s eyes".

And I am not saying this because I am a "vexacious applicant".

I am saying this because somebody has "pulled the wool over Helen Cooper’s eyes".

17 September 2007

Anna Bligh announced that there would be an independent overhaul of Queensland's Freedom of Information laws.

On about

19 September 2007 Cathi Taylor, Ken Smith's wife, resigned as Information Commissioner.

 

Mr Needham, I hereby request-

1 ) All documentation concerning and related to Helen Cooper’s letter to me dated 4 January 2007.

In particular, I would like a copy of the Education Queensland document from which Helen Cooper seems to have copied the gibberish:

"Departmental officers … explained to you the reasons for the alteration to some of the records, in part arising from the paraphrasing of your words by departmental officials."

2 ) All other documents / records concerning and related to me that have not been released to me to this date.

3 ) As you are aware, I am concerned that Mrs GR may have claimed to have "heard" a "confidential disclosure" concerning me, or that Mrs GR may have groomed some gullible child or parent to make such a disclosure.

If you or any other body are concealing any such "confidential disclosure" from me to protect Mrs GR, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with some clear and full explanation of this circumstance and as many of the related documents as can be released to me at this time.

Yours sincerely,

--------------------------

Rod Welford and Rachael Hunter - Education Queensland "Ministerial Briefings" are disgraceful!

 

If you are an Education Queensland employee, you must read "Ministerial Briefings":

http://www.badapplebullies.com/ministerialbriefings.htm

When you read these "Briefings" you understand why psychopathic principals laugh and jeer at you when you make a Grievance - why they are so obviously confident that they are going to "get away with it".

 

ROD WELFORD and RACHAEL HUNTER-

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND "MINISTERIAL BRIEFINGS" ARE DISGRACEFUL!

Queensland teachers are being driven into ill health and out of work and Education Queensland "Ministerial Briefings" on this situation are brazenly misleading.

Please have the integrity to deal with this systemic problem.

SING! - a new website by Karen Smith, Queensland Health whistleblower.

Do you know what is going to happen to you when you get old in Queensland?

Read what Queensland Health whistleblower Karen Smith has to say:

http://whistleblowerssupportgroup.blogspot.com/

The teachers are blowing their whistles!

Queensland teachers are blowing their whistles!

They are talking about their working conditions, and the news is not good:

http://www.theteachersareblowingtheirwhistles.com/

Letter to Rachel Hunter, Director-General, Department of Education Queensland.

 

Ms R Hunter,

Director-General,

Department of Education, Training and the Arts,

PO Box 15033

CITY EAST QLD 4002

27 November 2008

Dear Ms Hunter,

I request that I be provided with a letter to state that the following decisions concerning me are legally invalid and have been officially "stuck off" my official "Departmental Record".

a) The 29 November 2000 decision made by Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR, acting deputy principal Miss AL and usual principal Mr EL to put me into the Diminished Work Performance (DWP) process in 2001.

2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document 59 - number on top right hand corner of document.

2469 F The District Office document 19 - number on top right hand corner of document .

and

b) Lynch-Mob State School usual principal EL’s decision on 5 February 2001 to dismiss my Stage I Grievance about this abuse of the DWP process.

2469 F The District Office documents 142-143

Because these decisions concerning me were made in breach of-

• Natural Justice,
• The Public Service Regulations,
• The Education Queensland Code of Conduct,
• The Education Queensland DWP policy
• and the Education Queensland Grievance policy.

For your convenience I have responded to these decisions / documents in detail on my website:

http://www.badapplebullies.com/investigations.htm

and

http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

and

http://www.badapplebullies.com/verifactinvestigations.htm

In brief, Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR seemed to be abusing the DWP process to "pay me back" for asking for her support in dealing with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.

And Lynch-Mob State School usual principal Mr EL was on leave when he agreed with Mrs GR on 29 November 2000 that the DWP process "was warranted".

Mr EL had not discussed the situation with me before making this agreement with Mrs GR.

In 2004 an Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal reviewer" chose / was instructed not to "consider" my responses to the mass of falsified "records" that Mrs GR had secretly placed on my official records.

And in 2006 a Verifact Investigator seems to have been instructed to simply copy down what Mr EL told him, even though it was obviously untrue:

"There was no decision to put her on DWP."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 975.

"Investigations" of this standard simply demonstrate the systemic nature of the abuse of Queensland teachers.

Ms Hunter, please demonstrate that you will not tolerate the abuse of Queensland classroom teachers.

Please provide me with a letter to state that these decisions were legally invalid and that they have been have been officially "struck off" my Departmental record.

I appreciate your attention to these matters.

Yours sincerely,

_______________

Message for Robert Needham, Chairperson, Queensland CMC.

Mr Needham,

In January 2007 the CMC "accepted" an "independent" investigation into my complaint about workplace abuse.

I have just been allowed to read a few pages of the "independent" investigation report.

I emailed a letter to you on 23 October 2008 at 10:37 PM.

The letter contained some recommendations based on my experience of workplace abuse.

I am concerned that a junior CMC officer will simply file the letter without reading it "as instructed by senior officers".

I have decided to publish part of the letter here in the hope that you will read it.

 

Recommendations:

The Queensland government have a responsibility to ensure that Queensland teachers are safe at work.

If the CMC do not have the resources to investigate the systemic corruption of the Education Queensland Grievance investigation process, the CMC Chairman has a responsibility to make this known to the Queensland State Premier, and to ask for sufficient funding to protect Queensland teachers effectively.

The CMC practice of allowing Education Queensland officers to investigate themselves is not working.

It must be possible for a Queensland teacher to prove themselves innocent of an allegation.

If it is not, if there really is no hope of justice for a Queensland teacher, then the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process is corrupt.

Documentation

Education Queensland documention is of an appalling standard.

There is an urgent need for Education Queensland to develop documentation systems that are of a professional standard.

This appalling standard of documentation facilitates workplace abuse.

Verifact records are of a far, far higher standard. They use an "investigation running sheet" which details a series of actions. The CMC use a similar system.

There is an urgent need for Education Queensland officers to adopt an "incident running sheet" that clearly explains their series of actions or decisions.

There is a need to develop an "incident report" form on which a principal can record any allegation against a teacher. The form should contain space for the teacher's response.

There should be serious consequences for any principal who places a "record" secretly on a teacher's file without allowing the teacher to respond to the allegations in writing.

This behaviour should be clearly identified as workplace abuse.

There is an urgent need to protect teachers from imaginary or malicious allegations.

It is much too easy for a malicious or mentally disturbed principal to claim to have "heard" a confidential allegation against a teacher and to place the "records" of these imaginary "confidential disclosures" secretly on a teacher's official record.

The allegation should be provided to the teacher in writing.

The allegation should be clearly stated. It should consist of more than the principal's vague "concerns".

The allegation should contain specific facts that provide the teacher with the opportunity to respond effectively.

The teacher must have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent.

The teacher should be allowed to respond to the allegations in writing.

Because at the moment allegations can be continually changed. It is impossible for a teacher to respond to an allegation effectively and to prove herself innocent of an allegation when the allegation is being continually changed in this manner.

 

For example:

 

On 27 November 2000, GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School stated that-

Allegation ( A ) 

My "old principal" had agreed that I should be on  Diminished Work Performance.

I responded to this allegation.

But, in July 2004, when I received a copy of the secret meeting notes written by AL, acting deputy principal of Lynch-Mob State School, I discovered for the first time that my "old principal" had been falsified out of AL's meeting notes.

 

In AL's secret meeting notes I discovered-

Allegation ( B )

"GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School, then stated that the principal of Annie's other school shares her concerns".

And my response to the first allegation had been "edited out"of AL's secret "official record" of the meeting.

And I discovered that GR had claimed in several of the secret 2469 F "records" that the principal of my "other" school had expressed concerns about my work-

" the next day (i.e. 5 October 2000) ... I spoke to (name of principal of my other school) who appeared to be experiencing very similar problems when constructive suggestions are offered."

2469 F document 82, number at top right hand side of page.

 

and again, six weeks later

"Confirmed with (name of my other school) that they shared similar performance concerns."

Handwritten on 2469 F document 36, signed by acting principal GR and dated 23 November 2000.

 

So, in 2004, I responded to this second version of the allegation.

And in late 2004 the principal of my "other school" told Infocomm officers that she had not discussed me with acting principal GR.

 

So, in May 2006, usual principal EL claimed for the first time that-

Allegation ( C )

He was the "other principal" who had "noticed this problem"!

 

And this third version of the allegation was "accepted" by Education Queensland and the CMC!

 

And it was concealed from me till June 2008.

 

Education Queensland and the CMC have refused to allow me the opportunity to respond to this new allegation.

Because they consider the investigation "finalised".

 

So I can only respond to this third version of the allegation on my website:

http://www.badapplebullies.com/theallegations.htm

 

Policies

Queensland teachers who have been bullied must be involved in the development of new, effective anti-bullying policies.

Because, although Education Queensland claim to have written new anti-bullying policies, the new policies seem to have been written by the officers who were involved in the bullying and / or mobbing.

Or in "not knowing about" the bullying and / or mobbing.

You can't deal with bullying if you "can't find any evidence of bullying".

These officers seem to have no motivation to stop the bullying.

And the "new policies" seem to be based on the findings of investigations that were "set up" to find no evidence of abuse.

So the new policies are not effective.

One of the most shocking findings of the Verifact investigation was that acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL had developed no insight into their abuse.

None of them expressed any remorse. 

Which suggests that the new anti-bullying policies developed by Education Queensland since 2000 have failed to raise their awareness of workplace abuse, and that these administrators will continue to abuse classroom teachers.

 

Education Queensland administrators must follow Education Queensland policies.

This is not happening.

Example A.

The Diminished Work Performance Policy clearly states-

3.6 The principal should verify that there is substance to any complaint against a teacher prior to initiating a diminished work performance process.

The principal must inform the teacher of any complaint and provide a copy of the complaiant's written statement. ...

Usual principal EL had highlighted these words ( 2469 F document 97).

But he, acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL all ignored this policy.

 

There is a need to make Education Queensland policies known and readily available to staff.

Education Queensland policies are not known by Education Queensland staff.

They are not readily available to staff.

Example A)

Acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL had agreed to keep secret "records" on me within a few days of taking up their acting positions.

This was a breach of Education Queensland polices.

Either GR and AL did not know that this was a breach of Education Queensland polices, or they deliberately ignored the official Education Queensland policies. 

In 2006, five and a half years later, they both still seemed to be unaware that their behaviour was in breach of Education Queensland policies.

Example B)

AL did not seem to realise that I had the right to Natural Justice - the right to respond to GR's allegations.

She edited my responses out of her notes of the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000, repeatedly describing my responses as "arguing the point".

I myself knew nothing at all about the DWP and Grievance policies in November 2000, and I had great difficulty in obtaining copies of these policies.

 

Training

Education Queensland employees should be required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Education Queensland policies before they are appointed to "acting" positions.

An inexperienced "acting" principal or deputy principal who has no knowledge of departmental policies puts classroom teachers at risk of workplace abuse.

Acting principal GR's total knowledge of the Diminished Work Perfomance process seems to have been contained on one sticky-note.

2421 File F document 60.

In addition to my basic three-year training as a teacher, I had spent eight years studying in the evenings to complete two good education degrees

For Education Queensland to have exposed me to an administrator with such limited skills was negligent.

The senior officer who gave GR the basic advice on this sticky-note must have known that GR's knowledge of the DWP policy was very limited.

But nothing was done to protect me from GR's abuse of her powers.

This was also negligent.

All Queensland classroom teachers should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with Education Queensland policies, and to undertake impartial written tests on their understanding of these polices.

This should be seen as a Health and Safety issue, and as necessary preparation for "acting" positions.

 

Such a test would simultaneously evaluate a promotion applicant's reading, writing and thinking skills.

 

Promotion

There is a problem with the Education Queensland promotion system. And this problem puts classroom teachers at risk of workplace abuse.

Principals seem to be being selected largely on the basis of their glib oral skills - their ability to "spin" the facts. And there is a very fine line between being a good "spinner" and being a brazen, abusive liar.

I have no way of knowing if the abuse that I suffered was the result of limited intelligence, mental dysfunction or poor training.

But I do know that in November 2000 I had the overwhelming feeling that I was dealing with profoundly stupid reasoning.

Acting principal GR began the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 by stating:

 

"... This is not going to get better by changing methods ..."

 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 32 - number at top right hand side of page.

Notes made by acting deputy principal AL.

 

So there was nothing that I could actually do that would prove my innocence of the "lots of" mystery allegations.

 

"... it's about fundamental beliefs."

 

So, to prove myself innocent of acting principal GR's mystery allegations, GR was demanding that I change her beliefs about my own "fundamental beliefs".

Which was clearly going to be rather difficult because GR had always refused to listen to me:

On 10 November 2000, GR told the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who humiliated children.

The next day a teacher warned me that "the person" was me, and that GR believed that I had told a child to "put her nose against the wall".

On 20 November 2000, I gave GR a letter to explain that this had not happened.

The child had never been anywhere near a wall.

I asked for a meeting with the School Behaviour Management Committee.

But

On 27 November 2000, knowing that I had not told the child to face the wall, GR stated:

"It's not OK to have students face the wall."

When I said again that this had never happened, acting deputy principal AL did not record my actual words.

 

She described my response to the allegation as arguing:

"Annie started to argue ... "

 

And acting principal GR refused to listen to me:

"GR said let's not get into I did or didn't do this or that."

So the facts did not matter.

"This is about how you treat children not individual issues."

So, again, the facts did not matter.

 

"Annie again began to argue the point.

Acting principal GR said, "it's not about academically arguing each point."

Again, my actual response to GR's allegations is edited out of acting deputy principal AL's notes.

 

GR said, "it's not about academically arguing each point."

" ... you can't argue your way out of it."

And my response to GR's incorrect allegations is repeatedly dismissed as "arguing".

 

The fact is that the child had been sitting on the carpet in the middle of the room, watching other children acting in an Indonesian play. She was calling out and disturbing them. I told her to turn around and face the back wall so that she would stop distubing the class.

The child was never anywhere near the wall.

 

The problem was inside GR's head.

 

And that was why I could not prove myself innocent.

 

There is a need to select administrators who have better thinking and reasoning skills.

Or to provide appropriate support and training for principals who have poor reasoning skills.

 

The concept of "Natural Justice".

There is systemic abuse / misuse of the concept of "natural justice".

The concept needs to be re-thought.

1) When I followed the School Behaviour Management Program and sent children to acting deputy principal AL for poor behaviour, AL allowed the children "natural Justice" - they were allowed to make untruthful allegations against me.

And the children's untruthful allegations were secretly placed on my "official records".

But I was not allowed "Natural Justice" - the opportunity to respond to the children's allegations.

 

2) During the meeting on 27 November 2000, my responses to acting principal GR's allegations were not recorded.

And GR repeatedly refused to listen to my responses.

And GR made no mention of the allegations in the "notes to Leigh from Desley".

And she did not show me the "lot of allegations" or the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened."

I was not allowed Natural justice.

 

3) Acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL did not show me these allegations before-

 a) agreeing together on 29 November 2000 that "the (DWP) process is warranted" and

 b) asking me to a formal meeting and

 c) giving me a formal letter to advise me that I would be in the DWP process in 2001.

I was not allowed Natural Justice.

 

4) Usual principal EL did not show me the documents before dismissing my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.

I was not allowed Natural Justice.

 

5) The Education Queensland "internal reviewer" copied from the falsified documents on my file, but decided not to "consider" my responses to the falsified documents.

I was not allowed Natural Justice.

 

6) The Verifact Investigator was instructed to record a new version of the "departmental story" and to record new allegations against me.

This "report" was accepted by the CMC one and a half years before I was allowed to read even a limited version of the report.

I have never been allowed Natural Justice.

 

Conflict of Interest issues.

District Office staff, senior officers and FOI officers need to be trained to recognise "grooming" strategies and to resist being groomed.

Senior officers who are asked to conduct Grievance investigations or to write "Briefings for the Minister" should be required to declare any conflict of interest in the situation.

Acting principal GR sems to have extensively "groomed" senior officers by appealing to them for "advice" on how to deal with her imaginary version of my conduct.

This "grooming" process seems to have made these senior officers feel responsible for GR's abuse of the DWP.

GR's own secret 'records" reveal that she had "groomed" three senior officers in the District Office into "advising" her, or into participating in her abuse of the DWP.

The District Director revealed to Officers of the Information Commission in 2004 that he had also been "groomed" by GR during late 2000.

So, when-

a) Usual principal EL conducted his "Stage 1 Grievance Investigation" in January 2001,

b) and when the District Director assured me that he had the bullying under control in July 2002,

c) and when Dictrict Office Employee CHR wrote her "Briefing for the Minister" in August 2003,

- they all had a conflict of interest because they had all been groomed into feeling responsible for the advice that they had given GR.

"Acting" principals must be expected to know Education Queensland policies, or they must be directed to the policies.

And they must be expected to make the effort to read the policies themselves and to take responsibility for their own actions.

Because, when senior officers are 'groomed" by abusive principals seeking "advice" on policies, the Grievance system is corrupted.

Principals should be clearly instructed that it is not acceptable professional conduct to spend lunchtimes repeatedly pressuring other members of staff to join their own branch of a political party.

Their attention needs to be drawn to the potential conflict of interest issues raised by this behaviour.

Classroom teachers need to be protected from this abuse of a principal's position.

There is a need for inexperienced administrators to be monitored, and for alarm bells to ring loudly when there are signs that an inexperienced administrator may be abusing a classroom teacher. 

Acting principal GR claims that she first discussed putting me on DWP with District Office staff on the sixth day that she was acting principal.

If this really happened, it was a clear signal that acting principal GR was struggling in her role.

Alarms should have rung out in the District Office.

Immediate action should have been taken to ensure that I was protected from workplace abuse.

Reporting Mental Health Concerns.

There is a need to develop a proper process by which a classroom teacher can report a concern about the mental health of a school principal.

The lack of any such process exposes teachers and students to the risk of abuse.

I reported to usual principal EL on 25 January 2001 that acting principal GR's menacing behaviour during the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 suggested to me that she had a "mental or emotional" problem.

He seems to have done nothing.

I emailed a letter to Ken Smith on 21 June 2004 at 12:35 PM in which I stated that the extensive falsification of my "official records" suggested to me that acting principal GR had some sort of significant mental health problem.

 I copied this letter to the CMC, the Ombudsman and MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au

The next day, 22 June 2004, I handed a printed copy of this letter in at the District Office.

I understand that all copies of this letter were simply "lost".

 

Mediation

Principals must not be allowed to abuse their power to refuse mediation.

Teachers must be protected from "payback" for asking for mediation.

I had asked for a meeting with the School Behaviour Management Committee.

And I had asked for a mediated meeting with acting principal GR.

There was at least one person on that School Behaviour Management Committee who knew exactly what acting principal GR had said about me to the staff.

That was why GR would not allow me to meet the committee.

That was why she refused mediation.

That was why the "mediated" meeting had to be changed to a meeting for the purpose of putting me on DWP.

That was why GR would not allow usual principal EL to speak to the seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years, and who all fully supported me.

 

Abuse of Education Queensland Aboriginal employees.

A junior Aboriginal employee with no qualifications in education, law or psychology was given the task of "internally reviewing" my January 2004 CMC complaint.

The fact that he was an Education Queensland employee was concealed from the CMC till October 18, 2004.

I told the CMC myself.

The CMC officer that I told was quite aggressive in her disbelief.

 

If I had not told the CMC that the Education Queensland "review" of my complaint was being conducted by a junior Education Queensland employee, would they ever have found out? 

 

This Aboriginal employee came from a primarily oral culture.

But I was not allowed to speak to him.

The fact that he was Aboriginal was concealed from me.

He decided / was instructed to copy from the falsified documents that had been secretly placed on my file.

He decided / was instructed not to "consider" my responses to the falsified dcouments.

I consider that this was abuse, both of me and of the Aboriginal employee.

 

I was brought up in England.

I have a totally different cultural and language background to this Aboriginal employee.

I was brought up in a culture where "a man is as good as his word" and children are taught to "tell the truth and shame the devil".

I was not brought up to expect my government to be corrupt.

 

But Australian school children are being taught that it is OK to lie about their behaviour.

And not to "rock the boat".

And Aboriginal Australians have been horribly abused for generations.

 

I now realise that Australians, and Aboriginal Australians in particular, expect their government to be corrupt.

I discuss this in more detail on my website at:

http://www.badapplebullies.com/discrimination.htm

 

Investigations

It must become possible for a Queensland teacher to prove themselves innocent of an allegation.

On 27 November 2000, the first advice to me from the QTU organiser was that there was no hope of justice and to "accept the things you cannot change".

He told me that he had never known a teacher's grievance to be upheld and that teachers who "fought it" were mentally and physically broken.

Other QTU organisers have suggested to me that this was good advice.

 

My own experience suggests that, even if it is radiantly obvious from the first moment that the teacher is being abused, there is no hope of justice.

Because-

Education Queensland documentation is so appallingly unprofessional that it is impossible to find out what is really "going on".

The allegations are so vague that the teacher cannot respond effectively.

If a teacher does manage to respond effectively to an allegation, the allegation is changed.

Education Queensland senior officers deal with complaints by continually "losing" them.

Decisions are based on "Reports" and "Briefings" writen by Officers who have a conflict of interest in the situation.

Investigations are delayed for years so that the abusers can claim to have "forgotten" their abuse.

Investigators do not investigate a teacher's complaint.They side-step the teacher's complaint. They investigate a new complaint that is chosen by the senior officers who were themselves involved in the abuse. Then they find no evidence to support their own complaint. 

CMC officers do not read a complainant's complaint. They simply copy out the advice given to them by Education Queensland officers who have a conflict of interest in the situation.

 

This abuse of Queensland teachers is systemic.

And it must stop.

 

Mr Needham, the Queensland government has a responsibility to protect Queensland teachers from this sort of systemic corruption.

 

Details of the huge mass of falsified documents that I discovered on my Education Queensland "official records" can be found at:

http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

Letter to David Solomon : Page 1.

Dr David Solomon AM, Chair,

FOI Independent Review Panel,

GPO Box 5236, Brisbane,

Queensland 4001

March 6, 2008

Dear Dr Solomon,

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission in relation to the administration of Freedom of Information in Queensland.

I hope that the Independent Review Panel will not allow themselves to be abused as puppets to destroy Queenslanders' rights to Freedom of Information.

Freedom of Information can sometimes seem to be the only Queensland government "accountability process" that is functioning.

Without the right to Freedom of Information, Queensland teachers and other Queensland public servants would have no workplace rights.

There would be no accountability in Queensland.

Queensland teachers and other public servants would be even more exposed to workplace abuse.

Freedom of Information enables Queensland teachers who are dealing with workplace abuse to -

• Find out if the official records of their complaint about workplace abuse have been falsified.

• Find falsified "official records" that have been secretly placed on their Departmental files.

• Find details of internal and external "investigations" concerning them that have been conducted without their knowledge.

• Realise that what was represented to them as an "investigation" may not have been described as an "investigation" in the official records.

• Read "Briefings for the Minister" and gain an understanding of the strategies used by public servants to avoid "knowing" about public service workplace bullying, harassment, victimisation, discrimination and victimisation or "payback".

• Identify the Department of Education officers who have made untruthful statements to them and about them.

(If you can't see the rest of this letter, please click on March 2008 archives at the right hand side of this web page.)

Letter to David Solomon Page 2:

Why I made a Freedom of Information application in September 2003.

In 2000 I was employed as a specialist teacher in a Queensland State School.

Groups of Grade 7 children at the school were missing from their classrooms, roaming unsupervised around the school.

I discussed my concerns about the situation with the acting principal of the school.

The acting principal advised me to speak about it to the staff at the next staff meeting.

She put it on the agenda for the meeting.

But, directly before I spoke, the acting principal spoke to the staff at some length about "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

One of the other teachers later told me that I was this "person".

The shock of the acting principal's seemingly irrational and deeply unprofessional behaviour made me ill.

I was advised by the QTU, the staff welfare officer and two specialist advisory teachers to ask the principal for a mediated meeting.

At the meeting the acting principal told me that "a lot of allegations" had been made against me and that she had "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

This statement was recorded by the acting deputy principal and secretly placed on my Department of Education official record.

Two days after this meeting the acting principal gave me a letter to advise me that she and the usual principal - who had not discussed the situation with me - had decided to put me into the Diminished Workplace Performance process the next year.

This letter was also placed on my official Department of Education file.

These letters remain on my Queensland Department of Education official record to this day.

Since September 2003 I have been making FOI applications for copies of the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

To this date I have not found any document that answers that description.

But I have found a loose scrap of paper on which the acting principal has scribbled that she made her statements to the staff concerning me because of allegations that were made concerning me in "notes to L---- (one of the Grade 7 teachers) from D-----".

These "notes to L---- from D-----" were never discussed with me at any meeting.

I knew nothing about them till I found a copy of this loose scrap of paper in FOI documents that were released to me on 27 October 2005.

I only know two people called D-----, and they have both assured me that they know nothing about this situation.

Letter to David Solomon Page 3:

To this date I have not been allowed Freedom of Information.

But I have established that my official Queensland Department of Education "records" have been extensively falsified.

Many of the falsified documents are described in detail at - http://badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

My Freedom of Information applications are detailed at -

http://www.badapplebullies.com/freedomofinformation.htm

I anticipate that my experience will be the sort that is portrayed to you as a "problem with a vexacious applicant".

But I would suggest that it is not my applications for these missing "lot of allegations" in the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" that is the problem.

It is the refusal of the acting principal to either produce these documents or to admit that there were no allegations against me, and to remove her offensive and deeply unprofessional letters to me from my official Department of Education files.

The problem is not the policies, it is the practices.

My Freedom of Information experience suggests to me that the real problem is not a problem with the official Department of Education policies, but with the abusive workplace practices of Department of Education administrators.

The bully administrator is able to establish inappropriate "mobbing bonds".

My own bully administrator managed to form inappropriate "mobbing bonds" with other administrators and even with Head Office staff, including -

• a very senior officer who was controlling the investigation into my complaint
• and also one officer who was involved in "searching" for my FOI documents.

I have found the documentary evidence of these inappropriate "mobbing bonds" in the FOI documents.

These inappropriate "mobbing bonds" have affected my FOI applications.

Letter to David Solomon Page 4:

Falsified "records" can be maliciously placed on a Queensland teacher's official files.

It is too easy for malicious and untruthful "records" concerning a teacher to be secretly placed on that teacher's Queensland Department of Education official files.

Notes on loose scraps of paper can be secretly placed on a teacher's file.

These loose scraps of paper can be introduced, changed or removed at any time by an abusive principal.

Queensland school principals have their own offices and their own computers. There is no excuse for keeping files of sticky-notes and loose scraps of paper "recording" their secret thoughts and feelings about teachers.

It is much too easy for a malicious principal to secretly place "records" of imaginary conversations with children, parents, other teachers, other principals and District Office staff concerning a teacher on that teacher's official Department of Education files.

If the teacher ever manages to find these documents under Freedom of Information, the names of the children, parents, etc. involved in these imaginary conversations will have been concealed, so the teacher has little chance to prove that their "official record" has been falsified.

The FOI policy of deleting all names from documents exposes Queensland teachers to workplace abuse. 

And then, even if the child, parent, teacher, principal of member of the District Office staff tells the teacher or an investigator that they did not have this imaginary conversation concerning the teacher, Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) officers will advise the teacher that the principal's "record" of their imaginary conversation is not a lie, it is a "different recollection".

So you can never, ever disprove a malicious principal's "different recollections".

Undated, unsigned scribbles on sticky-notes can be secretly placed on a teacher's file.

These scribbled notes may convey no clear meaning. They can be interpreted to suggest more or less anything.

These sticky-notes can be stuck on top of dated and signed "records" to create the false impression that the sticky-noted comments are related to that particular incident and that particular date.

And then the sticky-note can be moved to create a different impression.

Because the scribbles on the sticky-notes are undated and unsigned, nobody can be held responsible for the suggestions that are being created by the scribbled notes.

Similarly, unsigned and undated notes can be scribbled in pencil onto documents that have been written, dated and signed by another person.

This can create the false impression that the events described in the scribbled notes happened at the same time as the events in the original document.

Or "records" concerning the actions of another teacher may be carelessly / maliciously placed on your Department of Education file.

• All documents concerning teachers should be signed, dated and shown to teachers before they are placed on teachers' files.

• There should be space on the document for the teacher's response. A response should not be "attached" to the official record, because it could be too easily "lost".

• No document should be placed on a teacher's Department of Education file if the teacher concerned has not had the opportunity to respond to the document.

• There should be serious consequences for administrators who are in breach of this policy.

This simple strategy would have protected me from workplace abuse in 2000.

If this simple strategy had been in place in 2000, I would not have needed to make any Freedom of Information applications.

This simple strategy would improve professional conduct, protect Queensland teachers from workplace abuse, and save a lot of FOI time and money.

Letter to David Solomon Page 5:

Falsified 'records' of meetings can be secretly placed on a Queensland teacher's official file.

Records of meetings may be falsified to the disadvantage of teachers.

For example, a teacher's response to allegations may be 'edited out' of the official records.

Or the allegations may be changed.

And the names of the people making the allegations may be changed.

The teacher may not realise that the allegations have been changed for several years, till they receive copies of the "records' of the meeeting under freedom of Information.

A lot of the teacher's time and effort may have been wasted writing responses to allegations that have been changed.

The teacher may even find that they have been used as a puppet to do themselves harm. Falsified official records may secretly have been made of their own 'confessions', 'demands' or 'poor professinal conduct'.

Union organisers may also have been abused as puppets to hear / not hear / not be able to remember what happened at the meeting and to do the teacher harm.

QTU organisers seem to feel helpless to prevent this abuse because of the QTU policy that 'no help will be given to any member who is in conflict with another member'.

This QTU policy exposes Queensland teachers to workplace abuse.

A teacher may be given verbal assurances at a meeting which are the direct opposite of what is in the official records.

Or the teacher may find that events that take place immediately after a meeting make nonsense of the assurances that they were given at the meeting.

For example, a bully principal may be promoted, celebrated in Parliament House or given a special award a few days after such a meeting.

• All Queensland Department of Education meetings to discuss complaints should be tape-recorded and transcribed.

• A copy should be given to each meeting participant.

• This simple strategy would raise the standard of professional conduct and eliminate many workplace problems.

• It would also reduce the need for teachers to make FOI applications for falsified "meeting notes".

 

Letter to David Solomon Page 6:

Queensland Department of Education officers seem to deal with documents, letters and emails of complaint by 'losing' them or by instructing each other not to read them.

The standard of documentation of complaints / internal reviews / investigations by the Queensland Department of Education is appalling.

And it puts Queensland teachers at great risk of harm.

The Department of Education has a responsibility to protect employees from exposure to the risk of harm because of poor workplace practices.

The horror of the incompetence / dysfunction / corruption of the Queensland Department of Education Grievance / Investigation practices is beyond the powers of belief of any ordinary person.

I would suggest that this systemic dysfunction is the cause of many repeated Freedom of Information applications.

• If Department of Education officers documented their activities to a professional standard, professional conduct would be improved and less public time and money would need to be wasted responding to / avoiding responding to FOI applications.

My own experience of this dysfunction is described in detail at http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

Letter to David Solomon Page 7:

The Queensland Department of Education 'investigation process' is dysfunctional.

Again and again, the person that you are complaining about (or a person under their close control, or a person who has a conflict of interest in the situation) is allowed to investigate your complaint about their own behaviour.

They then write a report "finding no evidence of" their own bullying.

All later decisions by other Queensland Government Departments are based on this first "finding".

Your letters of protest are disregarded.

When you make a Freedom of Infomation application for the documentation of the "investigation" of your complaint, all copies of this first "investigation" finding are "lost" by all Queensland Government Departments.

And the Premier and senior public servants agree that you have written a lot of letters and that they will not reply to your letters.

And so no Queensland public servant actually reads your letters.

Your letters are automatically filed.

When you write to protest that your official record has been extensively falsified, your letters are simply 'lost' or disregarded.

And no Queensland public servant can be held responsible for not reading your letters and not "knowing" that your official record has been falsified.

Because they were all instructed by the Premier and their senior officers not to read your letters.

Letter to David Solomon Page 8:

Strategies used by Queensland Department of Education Investigators / Reviewers.

An investigator may change the wording of your complaint to avoid investigating the real problem.

This seems to be a very common Queensland public service strategy.

Your complaint / grievance may have been falsified by being "lost".

The official record of a 120 page grievance can be reduced to three pages with this strategy.

An "internal reviewer" may simply copy from documents that he knows to be falsified.

He may have been instructed not to "consider" your responses to the falsified documents.

An "internal reviewer" may have been instructed not to ask questions and find out any facts.

He may have been instructed to "infer from the documents".

This gives the internal reviewer carte blanche to claim to have "inferred" more or less any nonsense from the documents, even if the evidence in the documents totally contradicts the "inference" drawn by the reviewer.

• The Department of Education practice of making "inferences based on the documents" is wide open to abuse. It should stop. 

Official "investigation reports" may be ambiguous and suggest several different meanings to different readers.

And what you are told at a "meeting to discuss the findings of the investigation" may be quite the opposite to the real findings of the investigation.

There may not even have been an investigation.

Letter to David Solomon Page 9:

The word "investigation" is used carelessly by senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education.

A phone call to a "mate" is not an investigation.

And it is unjust, abusive and deceptive for senior public servants to allow one of the people whose behaviour is the subject of a complaint to organise a tightly controlled "internal review" - which simply consists of -

• "drawing inferences" from falsified documents,
• refusing to allow any questions to be asked,
• refusing to allow the complainant's responses to the falsified documents to be considered

- and then for them to describe this very limited "internal review" in phone calls to other Government departments and in the official records as "an investigation".

I suspect that the careless use of the words, "we investigated it and found no evidence of ...", to describe poor professional practices is the cause of much wasted FOI search time.

I suspect that FOI officers are being asked to search for the documentation of "investigations" that were really little more than quick phone calls to a "mate". 

If Department of Education Education official reports were referenced to a professional standard - the standard expected of any university student, for example - it would improve accountability, discourage workplace abuse and greatly reduce the need to make repeated FOI applications for this documentation.

• The official records of an investigation should contain an accurate copy of the original complaint.

• Reference should be made to the specific document that supports any statement, finding, etc. made in internal review reports, investigation reports, Briefings for Ministers, etc.

• Department of Education officers who claim "I am told" or "I understand" something should be required to identify the documentary evidence that supports that claim.

This would discourage malicious gossip and mobbing, improve the quality of professional records and reduce the amount of time spent searching for FOI documents.

• A copy of all documentation that supports the findings of an investigation should be kept with the investigation report so that it cannot be "lost".

This simple strategy would -

• reduce the abuse of the Department of Education internal review / investigation / grievance / FOI processes to abuse teachers
• and reduce the time spent searching for "lost" FOI documents.

Letter to David Solomon Page 10:

There are problems with the Queensland Department of Education Freedom of Information (FOI) process.

The process takes many years.

I have been waiting since September 2003 for copies of the "lots of allegations" that the acting school principal stated on 27 November 2000 had been made against me in "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

When a teacher first makes an FOI application, they know very little about the FOI process and it is easy for them to be bluffed out of their rights.

I now realise that my first application - FOI 2361 - was "personal" and that I should have been given the documents free of charge in late November 2003.

To this date I have not received these FOI documents, despite applying for them over and over again, and paying many application fees.

Several documents that existed in early 2004 have mysteriously vanished during the FOI process.

I have identified some of the documents that have vanished at http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm .

Several "investigation reports" also seem to have vanished.

Department of Education FOI officers have a practice of suggesting responses to officers who are being asked for documents.

They sometimes seem to suggest that respondents simply say that they can't find any documents.

Sometimes you suspect that the FOI officer did not even contact the officer concerned.

• All FOI searches should be conducted in writing, and all respondents should be allowed to respond in their own words, because this allows you to check that the FOI officer did actually search for the documents and that the documents that the FOI officers have "searched" for are the documents that you actually requested.

Sometimes Internal reviewers do not seem to search.

They just give you their opinions about the documents. Their comments may be misleading, but they know that they cannot be held responsible for their misleading response because they did not search and so they do not "know" that they are misleading you.

One Department of Education FOI officer wrote to me one day, accepting my application fee, then wrote to me the next day, refusing to search for the documents.

This is an unjust and abusive practice.

Some FOI documents are photocopied "half off the page" so that the number of the page / key words / key dates / key names are "edited out" of the photocopy that is provided to you.

So you have to re-apply for a full copy of the document.

Some FOI officers choose not to photocopy information concerning you on the original covers of folders, so that the fact that a Discipline file has been opened on you, for example, is concealed from you.

• The original covers of all folders should be photocopied and included in photocopies of FOI documents.

Department of Education FOI officers seem to be fairly low down on the head office 'pecking order'.

This may be the cause of some problems. For example, sometimes they have to ask their superior officers for FOI documents. This seems to be difficult for them.

And if the senior officer just says that he has lost all of his documents, it must be difficult for an FOI officer to tell them to "stop playing the fool and hand over the documents".

Documents related to bullying and mobbing should be provided to applicants free of charge under FOI.

Bullying and mobbing are not part of the official duties of a Queensland public servant. They are personal.

Documents that you produce in order to protect yourself from mobbing and bullying, and documents that you use as evidence of bullying and mobbing, are also personal.

And allowing a bully administrator to "investigate" his own behaviour and find "no evidence of bullying" is not evidence that this was not workplace bullying because "we have investigated your complaint lots of times and we have found no evidence of bullying".

It is evidence that the mobbing problem is systemic.

Two very senior Queensland Department of Education public servants responded to my FOI application by claiming to have lost all of their emails and letters to me and from me over a period of several months.

I presume that they lost all of their other official documents as well.

You may think that this is an appallingly dysfunctional way to run a Queensland Government department.

• There is an urgent need to raise the standard of record-keeping in the Queensland Department of Education. The present level of workplace dysfunction is a waste of public funds and it creates a psychopath-friendly working environment.

When I made my first FOI application, the files containing the mass of falsified documents were numbered backwards, so that the last page of the last document was number one, etc.

Many of these 'documents' were unsigned and undated. They were scribbled by hand on loose scraps of paper and sticky-notes.

They concerned events that I knew nothing about - I eventually realised that many were 'records' of entirely imaginary conversations with me, my students, parents, other principals and other administrators.

These 'records' were not shown to me or discussed with me at the time that they purported to have been written, and when I did eventually receive FOI copies of the documents, the names had all been 'edited out'.

There was no document that actually explained what was 'going on' at the school - why all of these falsified 'records' had been secretly placed on my official files. 

At least one of the documents seemed to have been substituted for the original document. Several documents 'vanished' during the FOI process.

All of this muddle made it really, really difficult for me to comprehend the situation and to develop any kind of concept of what had been 'going on' at the school and what missing documents I should look for.

The Freedom of Information problem here is not my behaviour in making 'vexatious' FOI applications for these missing documents.

The problem is my struggle to make sense of the deliberate falsification of my Department of Education records, and the careless indifference to my welfare and to professional record-keeping that senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education have demonstrated.

They have demonstrate no leadership on this issue.

Recent UNE research suggests that as many as 99% of teachers are bullied at work.

But the senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education do not seem to care about this sort of teacher abuse, and so nobody else cares.

Letter to David Solomon Page 11:

Senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education seem to abuse Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "discrimination solicitors" and Aboriginal employees "in training" to facilitate discrimination and workplace abuse.

If you make a complaint about discrimination, and a Queensland Department of Education Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "discrimination solicitor" is employed to conduct an internal review of your FOI application, and then quite a lot of your documents vanish during this process, you might suspect that this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained discrimination solicitor is being employed / abused by the Department of Education to facilitate discrimination by losing the evidence of discrimination.

And if the employee chosen to "review" your complaint is an Aboriginal "trainee" with no qualifications in psychology, law or education, and if he is asked to "review" a mass of falsified "records" that have secretly been placed on your Education Queensland files, and if he is instructed that he cannot ask any questions to find out the facts, and if he is not given all of your documents, and if he is instructed / persuaded to ignore your responses to the falsified "records" - you might think that this Aboriginal employee is being abused.

And if you have spent ten years of your life studying to get two good degrees from prestigious universities, and if you have been inspected for a whole day in NSW and placed on the First Primary Promotion List, and if your health and your career are then destroyed in Queensland by an inexperienced and incompetent administrator with malicious gossip and sticky-notes, and if your complaint about this utterly dysfunctional "decision-making process" is given to an Aboriginal employee "in training", who has no qualifications in law, psychology or education - you might also think that you are being abused.